Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure by now you've seen the New York Times report on the new memos released that detailed the specific forms of abuse and torture that were approved by Bush administration attorneys. The release came about as a result of an ACLU lawsuit after denials of their FOIA requests, but apparently there was quite a debate inside the Obama administration over whether to release them or not.
The release of the documents came after a bitter debate that divided the Obama administration, with the C.I.A. opposing the Justice Department's proposal to air the details of the agency's long-secret program. Fueling the urgency of the discussion was Thursday's court deadline in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued the government for the release of the Justice Department memos...The documents were released with minimal redactions, indicating that President Obama sided against current and former C.I.A. officials who for weeks had pressed the White House to withhold details about specific interrogation techniques. Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, had argued that revealing such information set a dangerous precedent for future disclosures of intelligence sources and methods.
President Obama explained in a statement why he chose to release the memos:
But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program - and some of the practices - associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.
All of which is reasonable. He also says that the administration will not pursue charges against CIA or military personnel who operated under the legal advice given to them:
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.
And again, this is reasonable. I would not hold the agents who carried out the policy responsible for these things. But that makes it all the more important that those who set the policy and provided the legal justification for it are held responsible. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to want to do that either:
This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
This is where he loses me. He goes on to say, "The United States is a nation of laws." But that is only true if those laws are actually enforced. If those who broke the law are allowed to do so with impunity and without consequences, then the law is meaningless and might as well not exist.
Some have claimed lately that the possibility of Spain or another country bringing charges will force Obama to start an investigation and pursue possible prosecution of Bush administration officials. I think the opposite is true. If another country files charges against those officials, Obama will circle the wagons and become even more resolute in not pursuing such charges in this country. He has shown absolutely no interest in going along with anything that might restrict his own authority and I don't expect him to start anytime soon.
Another interesting statement from Obama on this matter:
Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern.
But this is nonsense. Obama's refusal to prosecute Bush administration officials is premised entirely on political concerns. He fears, perhaps correctly, that if he pursues prosecutions on this matter it will distract attention away from everything else he's doing, that it will kill any cooperation he might have gotten from Republicans and that it might well spark attempts at retribution (ironically, because the GOP will argue that he is engaging in retribution for the attempt to impeach Clinton). These are purely political considerations that have nothing to do with the principle of enforcing the law and holding our leaders responsible for their own actions.
Politics
Comments
"Your honor, we could stand here all day and debate who shot whom for their shoes. But at this time of great tragedy and sorrow, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
With that one statement, Obama just invalidated the sole purpose of the entire criminal justice system. Thankfully, he doesn't mean a word of it, but it does go quite a bit towards showing how stupid he must think we are.
Posted by: Shygetz | April 20, 2009 9:45 AM
"These are purely political considerations that have nothing to do with the principle of enforcing the law and holding our leaders responsible for their own actions."
I agree with you.
I also feel that Obama is misguided on the political ramifications of pursuing possible prosecution of Bush et al. Any time you can beat the GOP bodily about the head and shoulders whilst in The Stern Father mode, you will make them cower like dogs while simultaneously elevating the moral standing of the Democratic party. Another opportunity lost to help realize future Democratic agenda items.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 20, 2009 9:51 AM
I understand your aversion to holding the CIA agents responsible - but they broke the law as well.
I would be much more comfortable with aggressively prosecuting them, but being lenient on the punishments side.
These guys waterboarded a detainee an average of six times a day for a month. If they didn't know that was torture then they shouldn't be in the interrogating business. Alternatively, if they didn't know that torture was wrong - kick them out as well.
Posted by: Phaedrus | April 20, 2009 10:05 AM
Am I missing something? The *attempt* to impeach Clinton? Clinton *was* impeached, but acquitted.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | April 20, 2009 10:14 AM
Actually, I disagree that not prosecuting the agents is reasonable. "I was just following orders" is not a very good excuse, although it might be (at most) a mitigating factor. You always have the duty to disobey an unjust order. By not prosecuting, Obama has just made this harder than it already is, because following orders is now even more clearly the safer option.
No investigation also makes it less likely that we'll find out how much pressure was put on the agents to keep quiet, for instance.
By the way, the UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, appears to agree with me about following orders. He has also said that Obama's decision is illegal under international law.
I hope Obama reconsiders his decision.
Posted by: Deen | April 20, 2009 10:28 AM
Very good, Ed. Even better (if that's possible) than my post on the topic at Positive Liberty.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 20, 2009 10:31 AM
I assume given past experience that this is the quasi-official Republican response to the release of the Bybee memo last Thursday, written by ex-NSA/CIA Director Michael Hayden and Bush's last AG, Michael Muskasey and published in the Wall Street Journal. Lots of flat-out lies in there, I used to respect Hayden, that ends with this article. Especially despicable is their explicit reference that the lack of torture practices by the CIA prior to 9/11 contributed to 9/11 happening. My reading of the the Senate Select Intelligence findings by way of the book, "Intelligence Matters" by the Committee's Chairman Sen. Bob Graham, does not in any way reference interrogation techniques as a contributing or even a perhipherally related factor.
As a young man growing up in the late-60s & 70s, I experienced our country including its WWII veterans along with all other liberal democracies embracing and celebrating the legacy of international courts and those democracies aggresively pursuing justice against those in charge of violating human rights during fascism's reign. That was considered a distinguishing competitive advantage between us and authoritarianism. Simon Weisenthal was also celebrated as the Nazi Hunter, insuring those who tortured were brought to justice no matter which country's sovereign laws protected them.
The elephant in the room that both the GOP and Obama arguments ignore is the innocent victims who were tortured by us, some to death. Do they not deserve justice just like those victims got at the Nuremberg Trials received? Sure we've imprisoned some soldiers who tortured and even killed some innocents to death, but not all and certainly none of the command structure in spite of the fact that many of the heinuous acts against these innocent people were within the guidelines set forth by Bybee, Yoo, Addington, Gonzalez, Cheney, and Bush.
Will the victims' demand for justice if we deny them create a new Simon Weisenthal and if so; imagine him as an Middle Eastern Muslim coming from a country of Muslims looking to extradite our criminals to a place where justice still matters in terms of the innocent victims. Is that what we really want, to give the moral high ground to Saudi Arabia or Jordan rather than pursuing justice in our country?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 20, 2009 10:40 AM
Posted by: Alex, FCD | April 20, 2009 10:46 AM
It's all about the diffusion of responsibility. The buck just doesn't stop -- it gets worn to nothing while being passed around.
We see the same thing in corporate situations: put enough people in the loop, none of them having too many fingerprints on the nasty business, and at the end of the day nobody can be held accountable. (Think of the HP BOD affair a couple of years ago.)
In this case, the troops in the trenches are insulated from war crimes by having a lawyer's opinion in hand and the lawyer is safe for not having actually done anything but draft the letter that his boss wanted, and the boss is safe because all he asked for was a legal opinion.
Never underestimate American ingenuity: we not only created the Nuremburg Doctrine, we also found the work-around to avoid it.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 20, 2009 10:53 AM
There are simple, pragmatic reasons for why Obama has chosen the path he's on .
I tried to describe them in an essay the other day.
They are wonderfully simple. 1) There is no precedent. 2) It would invite a gop lynching in 2012 (probably) or 2016 (latest). And 3) investigations would reveal the Dim leadership was on-board...(cf: Jane Harman)
ergo, NAGAHAPUN! FUGGEDABODDIT!!!
Laws are for little people. Or as i wrote in a dicho:
Law functions best to insulate the Rulers from the insolence of the unruly.
Posted by: Woody | April 20, 2009 10:53 AM
To simplify, and clarify a portion of what Obama said:
"In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out TORTURE relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
Torture in good faith.
Obama is wrong. You are wrong, too.
You, however, are under no legal obligation to prosecute. He is.
Posted by: jackstraw | April 20, 2009 10:55 AM
Military torturers MIGHT have an excuse for 'following orders.'
Civilians--CIA/FBI/DHS functionaries--who engaged in torture were required to refuse to violate the law, or to walk away from the event.
REQUIRED!
If they stayed, it was entirely voluntary, and they are--ipso facto--GUILTY of crimes...
Posted by: Woody | April 20, 2009 10:56 AM
Honestly, this better than I had hoped for.
The most important thing we can do as a country is take greater interest and personal accountability for what is done in our name. The issue I want addressed is how we became so fat, dumb and happy that we let these crimes occur in the first place. How did anyone who voted for the Patriot Act without at least reading it get reelected?
Putting a dozen or so schmucks in jail doesn't solve the real problem of a self-absorbed, apathetic electorate. Worse, it could give the impression that the issue has somehow been solved with a few largely symbolic incarcerations.
Posted by: Preston | April 20, 2009 11:02 AM
Woody said:
2) I doubt it. Republicans are already calling for his head on a plate (sometimes more literally than is comfortable). If he's really worried about reelection, he should rather consider what this decision will do to the people who currently support him. AFAIK, military personnel is also required to disobey bad orders. It's just that it's not always actively encouraged to actually do this.
Posted by: Deen | April 20, 2009 11:18 AM
@Dean: Military personnel are required to disobey illegal/bad orders...kind of. If you decide the orders are illegal/immoral and disobey them, but it's later determined the orders were valid, you're going to be in a world of shit. You can't draft a letter of resignation when you're in the military.
When you're in the FBI/DHS/CIA you most certainly can resign. You might have to sign a ridiculous amount of stuff to make sure you keep your mouth shut, but you're a civilian and you can still walk. The reason they didn't is because it would've killed their careers. They probably wouldn't have been able to retire and get a nice job with a security firm.
So they tortured people for profit. And probably for fun. So why shouldn't we prosecute these people?
Posted by: JThompson | April 20, 2009 11:29 AM
There are political concerns here beyond maintaining some chance at bipartisanship, though to be honest, I think that if Obama were to allow the DOJ to pursue prosecutions slowly, sensibly, and without unnecessary grandstanding, Republican opposition may drive the party into a Federalist/Know-Nothing Alien and Sedition Act moment. Primarily, its important to remember that, contrary to the image the CIA works to portray of itself in the public eye, the Agency has great trouble recruiting, is riven by disagreements between its administrative, analytical, counter-intelligence and field sections, is frequently isolated politically, and over the last 8 years, has been practically dismantled in regards to both personnel and portfolio by the DOD, NSA and DHS(which really should be disbanded for a while host of reasons, but that's not the focus of this discussion). Basically, the CIA is fragile, vulnerable, possessed of an exceedingly unclear and mutable political mandate, and possessed of pitifully few successes at a job which is exceedingly difficult.
One of Obama's unstated goals in this first four years, something made clear by his appointment of an experienced political operator like Mr. Panetta to head the agency, is to rebuild the CIA upon a firmer legal and bureaucratic base and tie it more strongly to the White House, perhaps so that he can use it as a buffer to avoid the sort of DOD/White House incest so prevalent in Bush's administration, or maybe so that he won't be so dependent on the conclusions and recommendations of the DOD and State Department, who rarely agree on anything. Central to this project is maintaining high morale within what is left of the CIA staff, protecting its reputation as much as can be done so that the Agency will have some shot at recruiting the mostly liberal cultural and political scholars that it needs to recruit to do its job effectively, and sheltering it from the intra-departmental warfare in D.C. which has been ravaging the Agency for almost two decades now. And at the same time he's trying to do this, he also has to rebuilt our intelligence networks in Eastern Europe which were pretty much destroyed by Cheney's outing of Ms. Plame, so that we won't be surprised by another snap invasion of an ex-Soviet satellite like we were during the Olympics.
I think much of Obama's stance on this issue is part of this larger strategy to rebuilt the Agency. Given its right-of-center tendencies and general clannishness, one can assume this already insurmountable task could only be made more difficult by his party allegiance and the appointment of an outsider like Panetta to head it. That's not to say I agree with his statements on this. President Obama's stance of these issues has been a source of great disappointment in him for me. More than this, many of the CIA's perennial problems flow directly from this belief within the Agency that they are mandated to violate the law. Intelligence can be done successfully without illegal activity, as the work of The Economist and the State Department's intelligence section well attest to. What the CIA needs is not to be shielded from any controversy or criticism, but a clear charter with transparent, dedicated funding, a large and knowledgeable staff, dedicated political allies, a return to the institutional refusal within the agency to carry out internal intelligence, a less cluttered bureaucratic environment, a mandated, direct and complete partnership with the FBI on counter-intelligence issues, and cabinet-level access to the president. Holding it to the law and building it to withstand public scrutiny will help, not harm, the CIA, and President Obama's approach to the Agency so far has been a sad repeat of follies from Administrations past.
Posted by: Julian | April 20, 2009 11:35 AM
'While' should be 'Whole'. Sorry.
Posted by: Julian | April 20, 2009 11:39 AM
O'Reilly and Rove on the torture memos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBHqZpglAWM&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: WikipediaBrown | April 20, 2009 12:09 PM
I vehemently disagree about not pursuing charges against the collaborators of these policies. The 'befehl ist befehl' defence of Adolf Eichmann is NOT a defence that should be honoured in any civilized country or by any civilized person. It was not a valid defence in the third reich, it is not a valid defence in the USA.
And remember that even in the darkest reach of the USA people were far more free to act against this than in Germany during its nazi regime.
I do not condone the death penalty, so a long prison sentence is what these people IMO should look forward to.
Posted by: Konradius | April 20, 2009 12:32 PM
Headline: Waterboarding used 266 times on 2 suspects.
This says more than enough to pursue indictments. This shows that there was no real pursuit of intelligence. It was a matter of revenge, far beyond "just doing your job".
Posted by: natural cynic | April 20, 2009 12:35 PM
In today's WSJ, an argument is actually argue the Bybee memos are "proof" that Bush did not torture.
Of course they fail to inform their audience about the frequency some were waterboarded, lied or withheld information on the intensity of this torture, and deceived their audience regarding SERE.
They infer that SERE training created interrogation methods to ready our soldiers in case they are abducted and that there experiences provided safe procedures against detainees. The fact is that the tactics we train our people to withstand were developed by looking at how countries like Stalinst USSR, North Viet Nam, and WWII Japan tortured its detainees. Also, our soldiers were provided a mere taste of these tactics knowing a line would not be crossed, which is not torture, it's the length and intensity of what we did that makes it torture. Getting waterboarded once for twenty seconds with cellophane over your mouth where you know your "jailers" are really on your side is not torture; keeping someone in stress positions with only 2 hours of sleep per day for 11 straight days in a cold, brightly lit, loud,room while naked and wet, while also receiving beatings when removed from the stress positions, beatings that were long enough and intense enough you in fact actually die - that is torture.
What's really Orwellian about this article is their formal responsibilities under the H.W. Bush Administration:
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 20, 2009 1:16 PM
The CIA, supposedly an elite organization, has been revealed time and time again as an incompetent bunch of hacks. Of course, the NSA which is something like 30 times the size of the CIA has its share of shitheads as well.
Posted by: democommie | April 20, 2009 3:06 PM
The fun part - by publicly declaring "no prosecution in the USA" Obama is exposing all of the former Bush administration and all the operatives involved in torture to the universal jurisdiction clause of the Den Hague court. It specifically kicks in ONLY if the home jurisdiction is not persecuting.
Of course, the US never ratified that treaty, but that won't be any help to anyone caught in Europe.
Posted by: Mu | April 20, 2009 4:16 PM
While I agree there should be prosecutions, or at the very least investigations, all round this will never happen for the reasons people have outlined above and one more overriding cause.
Precedent.
The two parties have already got to the point where they sue each other at the drop of a hat and the active members of both organisations put far more effort into hating than they ever do to co-operating. Think how the supporters of the party not in power always now call for impeachment of the President and how, amazingly, the call each other 'fascist'.
If Obama were to investigate the previous administration you can bet that, somehow, he would be put through the same thing the next time the GOP is in power and the cycle would continue ad nauseum.
Posted by: David Durant | April 20, 2009 4:53 PM
Woody -
I think you have it quite backwards. Soldiers are in a much harder place than civilian operatives, because there are firm guidelines beyond what the lawyers have to say about it. The UCMJ is pretty explicit, no matter what any lawyer has to say about it.
On the other hand, civilian operatives are bound by no such guidelines. Instead, they are bound by what their boss has to say about it and what the lawyers have to say.
Prosecuting them would serve no purpose, except to make it more likely that operatives would be far more reticent to commit to actions that are of a dubious legal nature. Sending their bosses to prison, OTOH, would send a message that what they were told was wrong and it should never happen again. But the bottom line is, we need these folks to do things that are morally or legally dubious on occasion and prosecuting them would only serve to cripple our intelligence operations in the future.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 20, 2009 5:07 PM
John McCain claims water-boarding even once is torture when directly referring to our admitted waterboarding of the three al Qaeda members multiple times.
Yet the Fox reporter doesn't ask the obvious follow-up question: Given that torture is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional, against our laws, and violates our treaties with other nations, doesn't Obama have a constitutional duty to criminally investiagate those responsible for ordering and administrating what you claim is torture, especially given the Bush Administration admits doing it? How can now Obama not order investigations and stay compliant with his Constitutional oath and duties?
Art. I, Sec. 8 provides power to Congress to "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
Even if I'm wrong about this particular clause, and I very well could be, it's still a method for a journalist to put the onus on guys like McCain that want it both ways, i.e., say they're against torture while doing absolutely nothing about it. Oops, that's it, journalism does not equal Fox News. Yet, I don't see other media avenues asking bold questions to those in power either.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 20, 2009 5:15 PM
To the best of my knowledge, this law is still on the books.
Obama better solve this before he has to decide whether he has to invade the Netherlands.
Posted by: Deen | April 20, 2009 5:39 PM
DuWayne: But the bottom line is, we need these folks to do things that are morally or legally dubious on occasion and prosecuting them would only serve to cripple our intelligence operations in the future.
What sorts of things that are morally or legally dubious do you think we need to have done?
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 20, 2009 5:44 PM
Isn't that obvious, Chiroptera? We need to be able to torture the terrists so we can deactivate the big blinky timebomb before it goes off. True story.
Posted by: Paul | April 20, 2009 6:19 PM
Torture is always wrong. If everyone who was told to torture someone because people like DuWwayne are shaking in their beds at night in fear would refuse to torture people there would be no torture. Bush, Cheney, et al, need to be gone after, but the 'low-level people' (whom I am sure made more money torturing than I do teaching) are every bit as guilty as they are. If the evil of letting a torturer go largely unpunished enables us to 'get everybody involved in this evil' it might be worth it - but that is not what Obama has said he will do, and far too many people are saying that the people who actually did the torture are somehow blameless....as if somehow they had nothing to do with the torture. Torture is wrong, the torturer is the enemy of all humanity - and if everyone would refuse to torture people like Bush and Cheney would have no power - and DuWayne could stop being afraid.
Posted by: oscar zoalaster | April 20, 2009 8:33 PM
Again Oscar and for the last fucking time - we don't live in a world that looks like a care-bear fucking picnic. The people who want to do violence are not going to stop because we just up and decide to end all fucking intelligence activities.
Go fuck yourself.
Chiroptera -
Extreme examples, attempting to assassinate Saddam Hussein or Hitler. Less extreme, deciding to fuck someone for access to information they have - or blackmailing them instead. Or deciding to hack communications coming in and out of embassies in the U.S. Hacking into information that maybe in the hands of our allies. Detaining a family member of a Afghan warlord who travels abroad, or a family member of a Colombian drug lord.
Paul -
No, apparently it's not fucking obvious - though it's obvious your reading comprehension is completely fucked.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 20, 2009 10:03 PM
DuWayne, what are you so afraid of? You have made it quite clear that you feel it is very important to understand that we do not live in a "care-bear fucking picnic" (is that something like a bonobo stress-relief party?), does the idea of living in a safe world where everyone is nice and respectful to each other scare you? What is there about people not torturing other people upsets you?
And why do you feel compelled to use profanity when you interact with people who disagree with you? It does not lend any credence to your 'tolerant of torture' position. (And if you wish to claim that you are not tolerant of torture you need to stop saying that "we need these folks to do things that are morally or legally dubious" when people are talking about torture. By referring to torture as 'legally dubious' and by saying that 'we need these folks' you are tacitly saying that you approve of torture.)
Posted by: Oscar Zoalaster | April 20, 2009 10:39 PM
You know, it's possible that DuWayne's argument extends beyond just matters of torture into anything that might be considered "illegal" which he fears that the intelligence community might be scared away from if their operatives were to be prosecuted for breaking the law in this instance.
And, honestly, you can't really believe that everyone on earth is going to disavow human rights violations the minute we prosecute these....
...can you?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 20, 2009 11:08 PM
Oscar, you are nothing but a fucking liar and I am tired of dealing with you. I do not and have not condoned fucking torture and I am tired of you saying that I do. You don't merely disagree with me, you have repeatedly lied about what I am saying. That if why I use profanity with you. Liars deserve nothing but scorn.
Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 20, 2009 11:08 PM
DuWayne,
If you do not want to respond to me then do not respond to me. Coming at me full of invective does not encourage me to 'shut up'.
If you want me to get the impression that you are opposed to torture you need to stop writing imprecisely and sloppily when you are (presumably) talking about the disadvantages of prosecuting torturers to the full extent of the law. Make it clear that you are not saying that torture is acceptable. It is possible to be against a particular crime and (reluctantly) approve not imprisoning, or even prosecuting, someone for that crime - but whenever you seem to attempt to make that argument you seem to feel that if someone is not prosecuted for something that means that they were doing something 'good'. An action does not become 'good' just because it is connected with something else that is good.
Azkyroth,
"And, honestly, you can't really believe that everyone on earth is going to disavow human rights violations the minute we prosecute these.......can you?"
No, and it always surprises me when someone makes that nonsensical assumption.
We have a long long long long long way to go in this vale of tears, we are not going to get to DuWayne's beloved "care-bear fucking picnic" any time in the near future and probably not within the lifetime of anyone now living. But, we are not going to get there at all if we persist in breaking treaties (The U.S. is signatory to the Convention Against Torture, which _explicitly_ requires prosecution in cases like this), and making excuses for people doing things to other people that they would be outraged about if those things were done to themselves, their friends, or their families.
You, and other who commented in this thread may be outraged that Bush, Cheney, et al, may 'get away' with all of this, and ashamed of how they have tarnished this country's image - but, Bush, Cheney, et al, would not have been able to bring that shame on this country if people had refused their orders to torture prisoners. (DuWayne, I know that you will perceive the preceding sentence as a claim on my part that all intelligence activities should be abolished, so please understand that I am only saying 'torture bad', I am not saying 'do not indulge in curiosity about what is going on in the world')
The way to the "care-bear fucking picnic" is paved with people refusing to be inhumane to other people, and holding other people to ever-better standards of conduct. It will take a long long long long time for us to get there - but slavery is now illegal around the world, women are considered an equal part of society in more societies than every before, and more countries give at least lip-service to the 'Rule of Law' than every before - it will take a long time, but we can get to the "care-bear fucking picnic" world that (for reasons that elude me) bothers DuWayne and and others.
Posted by: oscar zoalaster | April 21, 2009 12:03 AM
If you haven't seen it yet, watch tonight's (Apr 20) Daily Show. Stewart points out how many of the right-wing pundits are outraged over this...NOT out raged over the torture that has occurred, but rather outraged that the Obama administration has released the memos about torture.
The right has given up any claim to the moral high ground long ago. Ever since Abu Graib was first brought to the world's attention, these people have been in favor of torturing America's enemies. This has been a disgrace of our country and its principles. Admitting that the torture occurred is just the first step we should take in atoning for the wrongs we have done in the name of fighting terror.
Posted by: Mobius | April 21, 2009 1:04 AM
And how much fucking clearer can I be, than repeatedly saying that I don't approve of fucking torture? You're a liar Oscar.
And you are not saying that only torture is bad. You were clear at right here that we should do nothing in secret. You said that we should not be engaged in any of those activities.
Lie to us some more.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 21, 2009 1:40 AM
He also said in that comment you linked to:
"Like alcohol government secrecy can be useful in moderation, but only in moderation"
does not equal
"Nothing in secret"
Posted by: Yaq | April 21, 2009 4:32 AM
Read the rest of his comments. He also explicitly states that he does not want anyone doing anything that intelligence officers are required to do.
He also repeatedly lies about my explicitly stated position.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 21, 2009 7:36 AM
I'm sure that the Brayton brothers will want to comment on the OpEd that appeared in todays' Washington Post which claims that, contrary to articles that have appeared in that paper and the New York Times which claimed that torture was ineffective, torture saved the City of Los Angeles from suffering the same fate as New York City did on 9/11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
Posted by: SLC | April 21, 2009 7:56 AM
Ran into DuWayne on another blog spouting the same shtick - "we need someone on that wall - you can't handle the truth".
Claiming that he didn't support torture and that everyone disagreeing with him was simply twisting his words, which were filled with - delicate nuance, was it, DuWayne?.
Torture and rape are not acceptable, not even by "intelligence" types. Very simple, DuWayne. Any other questions?
Posted by: Phaedrus | April 21, 2009 9:14 AM
And point out anywhere I said it was Phaedrus - one fucking place. Oh wait, I never said that and implicitly stated otherwise.
Any other distortions?
Posted by: DuWayne | April 21, 2009 9:19 AM
DuWayne - simple question - should the Justice Dept. begin criminal investigations in order to understand if torture was ordered and committed? If they find evidence of criminality, including conspiracy and authorization to commit torture, should those suspected of being part of this be indicted?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 21, 2009 9:44 AM
Michael Heath -
Read my first comment on this thread, and/or check out the thread I linked to above.
Absolutely and without caveat, I want to see the fuckers who made this happen do to prison. I would be thrilled to see the DOJ investigate and (though he doesn't link to a source) Greg Laden has a post up claiming that the DOJ is going to investigate.
I'm really not sure what part of "I don't approve of torture" and "I want to see their bosses go to prison" is unclear.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 21, 2009 9:53 AM
DuWayne - Well, I did read your comments, that is what is so confusing to me and it appears to others as well. You appear to want to prosecute those in the very top of this particular chain of command, but not all. In your first comment you state:
Therefore, to answer my question for at least some who have tortured, your answer to my question is "no, we shouldn't prosecute them" at least to those not at the top of this particular chain of command. You do make clear you want Bush Administration officials investigated and if evidence exists, indicted. The latter is an arguable position.
What is confusing though is that you appear to be holding out for times when the same laws will not apply to others at the top of a different chain of command, perhaps the Obama Administration, given your statement:
I have trouble with this since it appears to me that you are proposing an arbitrary application of the law. It is this ambiguity I think some are having difficulty with in this thread. What's a CIA interrogator to do when ordered in the future to torture? If I read your statements correctly, you want him to torture if ordered to do so in spite of Bush Administration being sentenced if they're guilty of torture, while those ordering such torture in the future may or may not get prosecuted based on same principles you never lay out. That's an extremely confusing environment for future officials and future interrogators.
Personally I prefer vigorusly investigating anyone complicit with torture, prosecuting them when evidence of criminality exists, and if guilty, sentence them. Whether they have an argument their complicitness saved lives or not is totally irrelevant, that's a policy argument, not an argument about the law. I also am cognizant that will cause short-term pain within the CIA, however I'm always in favor of taking the hit on tactical decisions when shooting for a better strategic position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 21, 2009 11:01 AM
Michael -
If I read your statements correctly, you want him to torture if ordered to do so in spite of Bush Administration being sentenced if they're guilty of torture, while those ordering such torture in the future may or may not get prosecuted based on same principles you never lay out.
No, not at all. I want operatives to be willing to do as they are ordered, without having to worry about being concerned about being prosecuted. And I want the officials who ordered the torture to be prosecuted to one, send a clear message to the operatives that what they were ordered to do was illegal - in spite of having been told it wasn't and two, I want to prevent officials from ever ordering operatives to torture people in the future.
I thought that I was being fairly clear (mostly at Greg's, where I explained my position in a great deal more detail) that I don't want operatives to torture if ordered to in the future. Rather, I want them willing to follow orders that are legally and morally dubious - a few examples of which I listed above.
My fundamental premise, is that I don't think it's reasonable to expect operatives to have to argue legal issues with the lawyers of those giving the orders. And I want to see those who gave the orders and those attempted to twist the law to make it right go to prison for having done so, thus preventing such orders from being given in the future. And I would also like clear interrogation guidelines be provided operatives that make it clear that under no circumstances are they allowed to cross the line - no matter what any lawyer or official has to say about it.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 21, 2009 11:37 AM
DuWayne - Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 21, 2009 12:39 PM
DuWayne:
Then what do you think about the responsibility of operatives to question their orders when they are dubious, and even disobey them? Wouldn't a decision to not prosecute make it all the more difficult to do this?
Posted by: Deen | April 21, 2009 2:29 PM
I feel bad for all the people who thought they were voting for FDR and got Jerry Ford instead.
But there is hope for justice...
No-one expects the Spanish Rendidion.
Posted by: teammarty | April 21, 2009 2:32 PM
DuWayne:
Thanks for answering my question, DuWayne. Some of the examples you mention I don't find all that morally "dubious", but that's just me.
As far as legally dubious goes, though, I do have a problem. I'm not sure what you mean. If there is a gray area in the law, then I agree that consideration of this must be taken into account before sanctioning lower level people.
However, the law should be as clear as possible as to what is permissible and what is not; if needed, the particular agencies themselves should have clarify in a transparent manner what the law requires and prohibits when necessary.
All officers of the US take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, and this presumably means respecting the laws passed by Congress in accordance to the Constitution. Since the earliest days of the Republic, it has alwasy been considered a sacred tenet of democracy that the government, meaning those who work for or within the government, shall always be limited in their powers (especially the executive branch being responsible for upholding the laws passed by the legislative branch) by the Constitution.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 21, 2009 2:46 PM
Deen -
That's my point, I don't want them to question or refuse orders - I want the people giving them orders to be held accountable when they order operatives to do the wrong thing.
Chiroptera -
Quite honestly, I do want them to flat break the law if necessary. I don't want them to torture or commit massacres, but I think it's important that they be willing to break, rather than merely bend the law. I do not believe that they should be able to violate the rights of Americans, but shy of that, I am not averse to them doing things like the ones I listed above - many of which are illegal.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 22, 2009 10:14 AM
DuWayne: thanks, that clarifies your position. This insistence on blind obedience seems like a potentially dangerous attitude to me, though. I can't imagine it's good for any organization, let alone a military or secret intelligence organization. I understand the need for swift action in certain situations, where questioning orders is impossible, but this case of torture clearly isn't one of those.
Also, I don't see why it's impossible to hold both operatives and the ones who give the orders accountable. Surely they have different levels of accountability, but to say that the operatives have no accountability at all seems rather extreme.
Wow, that is another extreme position. Are you really proposing putting a group of people above the law? That's pretty scary stuff. What about the rights of non-Americans?Posted by: Deen | April 23, 2009 9:14 AM